AGS v RKS [2026] EWFC 104 (B)

Judgment date: 13 April 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/104

DJ Guirguis. Unsuccessful application for an LSPO where the applicant husband’s financial remedy claim appeared weak, his disclosure was inadequate, and he remained subject to substantial outstanding liability under a POCA confiscation order.

Background

RKS (the wife) and AGS (the husband) began their relationship in 2013, married in 2015 and divorced in 2018. They have three children together; [5].

AGS served a prison sentence for ‘mortgage fraud’ between February 2016 and May 2018. He was subject to a confiscation order made by the Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002); [6]. This revealed that AGS had benefited from criminal conduct worth £1,407,503.51 and had been ordered to pay over £506,000. Realisable assets included the former family home, land, overseas property, cash, and luxury items; [10].

RKS bought out AGS’s interest in the former family home to satisfy the confiscation order. The equity was later used to purchase a property in her sole name; [11]. The CPS informed AGS that while it would not intervene regarding maintenance or legal services payments, it reserved the right to pursue any capital assets he might recover through the financial remedy proceedings; [12].

The law

The court considered the relevant matters for granting a LSPO under ss 22ZA and 22ZB of the 1973 Act, together with the guidance in Rubin v Rubin [2014] EWHC 611 that where the underlying substantive claim appears ‘doubtful’, an application for relief should be approached with caution. In CW v CH [2022] EWFC B1 Recorder Allen noted an argument that the substantive claim has no merit does not preclude the making of an interim costs allowance; [20]–[21].

Reasoning

The court considered the matters set out in s 22ZB of the MCA 1973.

Parties’ resources and needs

By this judgment the parties had not filed their Form Es; [23].

In his statement in support of the application, AGS stated that he was in receipt of Universal Credit and relied on friends for accommodation. He put his income needs at £4,160 per month plus a deposit for a rental property for the first month. In his first statement, he sought an LSPO of £57,675 and sought £17,000–£18,585 to cover a further interim hearing; [25].

The wife owned the property in which she and the children live (which was valued by AGS to be worth £1.2m less a mortgage of about £300,000); [26]. She had assets tied up in a number of companies and received an income of £12,000 per month plus £500 per month from other benefits; [26]. Her outgoings for herself and the children were £12,739.04 per month and she owed private school fees of £13,614.44. She stated that she could not afford to pay any money to AGS and highlighted that she alone was meeting the needs of the children; [26].

The judge noted that RKS would need to borrow to fund her own litigation costs and to fund any payments ordered to AGS; [27].

The subject matter of the proceedings

It would be difficult for AGS to make a sharing claim against RKS given the earlier POCA proceedings; [28].

The court’s view was that if AGS had retained any interest in assets held by RKS, those interests would likely have been identified during the confiscation proceedings. The judge was unpersuaded by AGS’s argument that he retained an interest in the family home after RKS had bought out his share to satisfy the confiscation order. In her view, the purpose of the buy-out was to extinguish AGS’s interest, and treating the new property as matrimonial would penalise RKS for AGS’s criminal conduct; [28].

Counsel for RKS submitted that the effect of a decree absolute is to end the marriage and that thereafter there can be no matrimonial property. The judge considered GW v RW [2003] EWHC 611 and MB v EB [2019] EWHC 1649 and agreed that a marriage cannot be said to have continued after divorce, irrespective of the level of contact between the parties. She concluded that, at this stage, there was no evidence of ‘any matrimonial acquest’; [29]–[31].

The judge considered that AGS would have to establish need in order to succeed. Even if AGS succeeded in obtaining a capital award, the CPS would likely seek to recover much of it. For AGS to receive any capital benefit from the application, he would need to recover at least £901,000 and this was unlikely as RKS was meeting the needs of the children alone; [32].

The judge considered that AGS’s case relied upon a version of events previously presented to the police and CPS which the court regarded as untrue, whereas RKS had maintained a truthful position regarding the end of the marriage. This affected the merits of AGS’s application; [33].

The judge noted that AGS relied on medical evidence showing that he was unfit for work due to anxiety and depression and dependent upon Universal Credit. Nevertheless, RKS had produced evidence suggesting that AGS was involved in additional companies; [34].

Whether the paying party is legally represented

RKS would not be able to continue being represented if required to pay funds to AGS; [35].

Any steps taken by the applicant to avoid all or part of the proceedings, whether by proposing or considering mediation or otherwise

RKS complained that AGS did not follow the pre-action protocol and that he did not suggest NCDR. The judge concluded that AGS took ‘far too limited’ steps to avoid these proceedings. The judge remarked that this was unlikely a case that could have been resolved outside court, but the issues might have been narrowed; [36].

The applicant’s conduct in relation to the proceedings

The judge was critical of AGS’s conduct, finding that he failed to provide full, frank and clear disclosure.

The judge considered AGS’s description of the confiscation order as a ‘civil POCA’ to be untrue and regarded his failure to disclose the outstanding benefit figure under the confiscation order a ‘very serious omission’. She rejected any suggestion that AGS was unaware of the remaining liability or the possibility that the CPS could seek to recover assets from him in the future. The judge deemed that AGS had deliberately withheld this information because it weakened the value and prospects of his financial claim; [37].

Effect of the order on the paying party

The judge observed parts of RKS’s budget that could be trimmed but acknowledged that this money would have to go towards paying off the school fees debt. RKS did not appear to have any realisable funds, and she would need to borrow to fund her own costs, and any order made for an LSPO; [40].

Decision

The judge concluded that it would not be fair to make the LSPO. There were weaknesses in AGS’s substantive claim, he had not been candid about his financial status, and an LSPO would have had a considerable impact on RKS.

The judge invited written submissions on costs for determination at a later date.

This judgment has not been certified as citable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.